Skip to content


Mcclellan Vs. California - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number386 U.S. 280
AppellantMcclellan
RespondentCalifornia
Excerpt:
.....u.s. 280 (1967) u.s. supreme court reports mcclellan v. california, 386 u.s. 280 (1967) mcclellan v. california, 386 u.s. 280 (1967) 386 u.s. 280 mcclellan v. california. on petition for writ of certiorari to the district court of appeal of california, second appellate district. no. 69, misc. decided march 13, 1967. certiorari granted; vacated and remanded. petitioner pro se. thomas c. lynch, attorney general of california, william e. james, assistant attorney general, and philip c. griffin, deputy attorney general, for respondent. per curiam. the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. the judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in.....
Judgment:
McCLELLAN v. CALIFORNIA - 386 U.S. 280 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court Reports McCLELLAN v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 280 (1967) McCLELLAN v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 280 (1967) 386 U.S. 280

McCLELLAN v. CALIFORNIA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 69, Misc.
Decided March 13, 1967.

Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.

Petitioner pro se.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment for the reasons stated in his opinion concurring in the result in Chapman v. California, ante, at 42.

Page 386 U.S. 280, 281




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //